August 30, 2006

Primary Source

by emptywheel

As part of my new practice of reminding journalists that even my dog--McCaffrey the MilleniaLab--knows more than them about the Valerie Plame leak, here he is, ready to walk a journalist or two around the block.

For example, McCaffrey knows that Marc Grossman did not write the famous INR memo. Rather, someone in INR did. According to the memo's cover sheet, Neil Silver drafted the memo and Beth Frisa cleared it. But the NYT's Neil Lewis has either forgotten the difference between the words "for" and "by," or he doesn't know much about this case.

In the accounts by the lawyer and associates, Mr. Armitage disclosed
casually to Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked for the C.I.A. at the end
of an interview in his State Department office. Mr. Armitage knew that,
the accounts continue, because he had seen a written memorandum by
Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman. [my emphasis]

Similarly, McCaffrey knows that the INR memo, dated June 10, was not written in response to a Libby inquiry, which was in turn a response to Pincus' article, dated June 12. Rather, McCaffrey would point out, Libby's inquiry came in response to Pincus' reporting on the article (and two earlier articles), as the dates would suggest, rather than the article itself. Lewis, however, fails to make the distinction that would explain away his chronological magic.

Mr. Libby’s inquiry was prompted by an Op-Ed article on May 6, 2003, in
The New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof and an article on June 12,
2003, in The Washington Post by Walter Pincus.

Now perhaps McCaffrey, who has little patience with the stupidity he has seen in this case, is just being overly picky. He does wonder, however, what happened to all the guys who had been covering this story for the NYT--David Johnston or Richard Stevenson or Adam Liptak--who at least had a sense of the plot. And given Lewis' apparent unfamiliarity with the plot, McCaffrey wonders at the attribution for the lawyer named in the headline.

First Source of C.I.A. Leak Admits Role, Lawyer Says

The attribution, you see, is to a "lawyer involved in the case." Not, "Armitage's lawyer," but a "lawyer involved in the case" and "the lawyer." and when Lewis covers the Woodward leak, he cites "lawyers."

You see, McCaffrey only raises the question because just about every other time someone uses the description "a lawyer involved in the case" in this case, it really means, "a lawyer who would like to spread rumors on behalf of his client, who may be implicated in the case." Which in this case certainly would describe Armitage's lawyer, but it'd also describe a bunch of other lawyers as well.

McCaffrey also notes--comparing this lawyer with others reporting on Armitage--how Corn...

In pegging Armitage as Woodward's source, Hubris cites five confidential sources--including government officials and an Armitage confidant.

And Isikoff ...

According to three government officials, a lawyer familiar with the
case and an Armitage confidant, all of whom would not be named
discussing these details, Armitage told Woodward about Plame three
weeks before talking to Novak.

... refer to who confirmed that Armitage was a source for Woodward. You see, "a lawyer involved in the case" has a cousin, "a lawyer familiar with the case." And that cousin appears to be one of Corn and Isikoff's sources--though Corn either doesn't acknowledge that fact, or this lawyer is one (perhaps Abu Gonzales or William Howard Taft IV, whom they mention elsewhere in their articles) who is both a government official and a lawyer. That's obviously not uncommon, to have a government official with a JD, but it pays to keep track of all these lawyers popping up as anonymous sources.

Mind you, McCaffrey is not disputing the central assertion in the article: Armitage was a source for Novak and for Woodward. McCaffrey knows that because emptywheel covered all that almost six months ago.

But given the sloppy details and the lawyers floating around this article, McCaffrey just took note of some of the spin in the article, such as when Lewis described the White House (not OVP!) motive for researching Plame.

White House officials wanted to know how much of a role [Plame] had in selecting [Wilson] for the assignment.

(Though this assertion is not attributed to anyone). Or, more importantly, the certitude with which the article declares Armitage to be the one and true god source for Novak.

But the lawyer and other
associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the
initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

That description, in particular, got McCaffrey's attention because with
all the hullabaloo surround the Isikofff and Corn "scoop" (if you can
call six month-old news a "scoop"), people seem to have forgotten the
implications of the scoop. All the reporting thus far explains that
Armitage didn't know that Plame was covert. Yet Novak referred to her
as an operative, a term he uses to describe covert intelligence
officials. So that means the real culprit--the one who told Novak about
Plame's status--remains out there, still unrevealed.

Now, McCaffrey's not really great with the English language (though he does know the difference between "by" and "for," particularly if it involves bones "for" him). But in his opinion, the guy who gave Novak Plame's name and revealed her classified status--that guy is Novak's "primary" source. And McCaffrey--who's really a pretty sharp dog--kind of wonders how Armitage would know if he were Novak's primary or first source, beyond what Novak (who, at least according to Novak, hasn't spoken to this source since the leak) has said publicly.

Then again, maybe McCaffrey's just being picky.

Update: Apparently, CREW's doggies are smarter than a lot of journalists, too. They point out that Armitage's role in the leak doesn't affect the coordinated campaign launched by Dick and his minions.

Despite all of the unfounded right-wing rhetoric, the allegation this week that Richard Armitage was the initial source who told both Bob Novak and Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA
does not affect the lawsuit that Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson
have brought against the White House officials responsible for leaking
Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA operative. That lawsuit is
premised on the deliberate and unlawful actions of top White House
officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, his former chief of
staff I. Lewis Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove, to publicly discredit Mr.
Wilson and retaliate against him for his public statements regarding
the administration's justification for going to war against Iraq by
deliberately disclosing to selected reporters the classified CIA
identity of Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Armitage's conduct in no way alters
the fact that Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, and Mr. Rove were
engaged in a concerted effort to violate the rights of Valerie Plame
Wilson and Joseph Wilson that they should be held liable for their
actions.

Maybe all Bush knew was Valerie was a spy for some agency not CIA, and tells Woodward, who tells Novak after Armitage had already First Sourced to Novak, but there is only One Decider, and maybe the Decider was the First Source; or, even Harriet Miers may have conveyed the message from the Decider that Plame was a spy who was involved; lots of information passes thru the detente at Miers' station to Bush and from Bush. As for the obfuscation or confusion of the NYT reporter, maybe it is part of a NYT deal to barter away some investigational territory by helping with the Labor Day fiction rolled out to loll in the press for the next week, a tentative story to see if the public comes back from the beach with the story limned in the short term memory deficit mind, and gets back to work sure the Investigation is over. I even thought that Times Select was part of the executive trademaking, when suddenly it became only real journalists like yourself, who have Pacer and Times Select, to keep facts in order; I do not know this Neil Lewis, so there is no way I may be blamed for sharing some of my imprecisions with him; he is a reporter and is supposed to follow the details. I have my doubts about my Sheltie Brux being able to shed any light on the matter; but, if you see him, his previous owners pronounced his name Brooks, though as with yours I suspected he was hale dog well met from some fraternity.

Maybe McCaffrey should apply for a job at the NYT!
There are a few important things to keep in mind. As you pointed out, "All the reporting thus far explains that Armitage didn't know that Plame was covert". This means that someone else told Novak about her undercover status.Also, that Novak origionally said that "...they came to him..." with the information. Novak sought out Armitage. Finally,and this should be repeated regularily, Armitage confessed his part to Fitzgerald long ago,supposedly after reading Novak's "no partisan gunslinger" piece. So Fitzgerald knew all about Armitage's role. He went ahead with the case anyway and two years later he is still is pursuing the criminals. He must be after bigger game.

I can't help but wonder if this obviously rovian inocculation is a prelude to more news from the Fitz camp. Perhaps they fear he is getting close and they are laying this misdirect out there now so that when the levee breaks they can have their spin doctors wailing 'but Amitage admitted it' for the ignorant masses (also known as - the 34%).

I can't help but wonder if this obviously rovian inocculation is a prelude to more news from the Fitz camp.

Almost has to be, since Armitage is (1) high up enough to satisfy the indiscriminate, and (2) seemingly casual enough to blunder into a highly classified disclosure—not that I, or lots of folks it seems, believe that part for one minute.

Don't forget this is in some sense a "sideshow". Up until the end of June the game plan was to continue to hide that there was no basis (WMD fronted) for invading Iraq. And that had been known for awhile. In fact, they were gambling, knowing they had nothing, that they may get lucky and find something they could sell (ooh ooh ooh - look! Mobile labs. Yup, we found them Jr. sez).

See... the full fontal on Wilson was to keep the charade going until they had "facts on the ground" to make American soldier deaths (defending our system of government) palatible.

Don't think we are fucked? Look at where we are now with a Prez who can't level with us about why we are where we are now.

Katie Jacob said: "So Fitzgerald knew all about Armitage's role. He went ahead with the case anyway and two years later he is still is pursuing the criminals. He must be after bigger game."

Before Fitz was even appointed, Armitage spoke with the FBI. Fitz knew before he talked to Novak who his sources were. See Novak's July article:

[quote]I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices on Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. [b]I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.[/b][/quote]

[quote]However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.[/quote]

Yes, they are worried. We've not gotten a rent-a-troll thus far in this thread, but just about every thread where I posit this--that Armitage's "revelation" just proves we're still missing the culprit--we get a GoP rent-a-troll to try to refute basic grammar. So yes, they're worried, and they either orchestrated this (thus my McC's concern with yet another "lawyer familiar with the case," or they're capitalizing off it mightily. Another issue is the Wilson suit. Thus far, Armitage hasn't been named--by bringing him up and trying to force him into the suit, they may be trying to immunize the basic players--to piggyback on Armitage's idiocy.

So for whatever reason, they're trying to capitalize on this. All we can do, it seems, is keep pointing out the obvious. The guy holding the (metaphorical) smoking gun is still running around out there.

You might be right. But thus far, Corn and Isikoff's "scoops" have been nothing but details loaded onto misdirection. And Corn's description of what is left to come sounds like nothing that a good blogger doesn't already know.

It would be cool to know Warren P. Strobel's source for that very interesting early article. It was what the FBI was looking at. Oh, remember those OSP and beyond interviews about that long time ongoing inquiry? The odd questions? Years old stuff.

To help a little with the analysis regarding the identity of #1, here's an excerpt from the October 5, 2003 Meet the Press transcript, featuring Russert and Dana Priest of the Washington Post.

Scene-setting: Robert Novak is a MTP guest four days after his October 1 "not a partisan gunslinger" column and two days after he announces the business name of Plame's non-official cover company on CNN. The DOJ investigation is officially underway, and Armitage has apparently already testified. Two days after this MTP interview Novak will testify for the first time to the DOJ/FBI at his lawyer's office - on October 7th - where he will tell how he learned about the wife's alleged involvement, but will not tell them from whom he learned it (he wanted to get that cover story on the DOJ record before he forgot the details of it...). Russert's interview of Novak has mostly concluded, and Novak is listening to Priest and Russert speak in front of him. Dana Priest is the co-author with Mike Allen, of the September 28th Sunday Washington Post front page story featuring #1 - published exactly one week before she discusses that anonymous source with Russert thusly:

Russert: Let me turn to The Washington Post. Dana Priest, last Sunday you wrote a story on the front page which said this: “A senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. ...‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak.” What do you make of that? What was going on?

Dana Priest: Well, I think even people within the administration thought that this stepped over the line. If senior officials, as Mr. Novak suggests, know everything, then they knew that she was covert, which she is, or she was. And they probably knew the damage that that can create, which is quite significant. ...[snip]...

Russert: In your story, you say 'a senior administration official said that two White House officials' which sent off an awful lot of people in this town scurrying, saying, a senior administration official, as opposed to White House official, this must be the CIA at war with the White House.

Priest: Well, a lot of people can read what they want into it and usually they’re not correct. We don’t want to go any further than we said in that. But, again, I’ll say that I think there were people in the administration who thought this crossed the line, and they were upset. And as you see in that...

Russert: But the administration’s big; it includes the CIA. Would you be willing to say the administration official in your story was not CIA?

Priest: There—I don’t want to go beyond it. But what I do want to state again that the point of the—of putting it so high in the story was that people within the administration, who support the administration, even, believe that it crossed over the line. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131258/

The bolding highlights a great point by Priest with regard to an earlier answer by Novak to a pretty good Russert question.

So evidently, as Swopa and Jeff have picked up, later on Allen and/or Priest did 'want to go further than that' because they apparently deliberately started to refer to their source as a White House official, as opposed to a senior administration official. And Priest and Russert make it pretty clear here that they are both aware of the significance of the specific terminology used to describe this key #1 anonymous source.

P.S. To lilnubber -- you may also need to switch to <> from [] to get your html features to work.

I'm just sure this falls into the orchestrated category. Reminds me of the 'memogate' Bush service records that the admin could have disputed early, but instead they let CBS get down the road with it then ran it up Rather's bum. It served to inoculate Bush against Kerry's clearly superior service record. Actually, memogate finished the job for the flailing swiftboaters. I still think the "IBM typewriter paper was a Rove plant. Do we need to remind anyone of his old office bugs trick. This looks textbook Rove printed in a different shade of grey, and he uses it because it works. I think the point about inoculating someone related to the Plame suit is interesting, but I just can't see how that would work or be worth spending the ploy. This feels like bedding a soft spot for a coming pre-election shit storm. We are essentially in September. If something comes out of Fitz camp between now and the election they can trumpet this just long enough to get them through the elections before people work their way through network sloshing it around. Hmm. I wonder if this is propalactic or pro-active? You know, EW. I also wonder if their use of Rent-a-trolls has become an exploratory tool to test effectiveness and prepare for counter argument before they lay these turds. Just a thought.

This is only a little OT, some background on William O'Neill, the editor of Investor's Business Daily, who just launched the first salvo in Rove's new "Fitzgerald's a traitor" attack:

O'Neil, a GOP supporter who claims influence with the Bush White House on economic policy, stresses that he doesn't involve himself in editorial affairs. There is no question, however, that IBD serves a decidedly conservative agenda. The newspaper's op-ed page regularly calls for tax cuts and supports racial profiling as a means to combat terrorism.

O'Neil himself expresses strong conservative views in private and even, on occasion, publicly: An open letter from O'Neil that appeared in the New York Times right after 9/11 called on the government to reduce the capital gains tax, lower corporate income taxes, lower interest rates, open up the deep interior of Alaska to oil drilling, and begin funding a missile defense system.

One former employee told me he left IBD when Jesus Christ was featured in the newspaper's "Leaders & Success" column.

... they are laying this misdirect out there now so that when the levee breaks they can have their spin doctors wailing 'but Amitage admitted it' for the ignorant masses (also known as - the 34%).

If any members of the "ignorant masses" can actually keep track of even one tenth of the discussion of who said what to who, and when, that is routinely assumed as backgound knowledge here, they are not as ignorant as you assume.

For the vast majority of the 34%, crafting an alternative story about this would be a complete waste of time, because they are not following the story in the first place, and don't even care about any details of it. The minute two politicians engage in a "he said, she said" conversation, they simply tune out, and write it off as "politics as usual". And as for even knowing who Armitage is, forget it -- let alone grasping why it might matter what he said or didn't say to anyone.

Can't argue that. So they do this to set the "he said she said" in the media with the goal of getting your stated 'tune out'. Works the same for them in the end. Fortunately, inoculations don't cure cancer, and if polls prove out that's what they have. Can't wait for November.

This is OT, but I think this speech by the mayor of Salt Lake City today, and the reporting of it to it (which strikes me as more balanced than it would have been a year ago) is an indication of how things are shaping up as we approach November.

Cymro, I just read the speech you pointed out by the mayor of Salt Lake City and wish every adult in this country would read and digest it. Last night Keith Olbermann on Countdown did something I have not heard any other person in his reporting capacity do: he called out Rumsfeld loud and clear. I can't help but wonder if Countdown's sponsors will let that stand, and I think KO felt passionate enough to not care. It may be too much to expect the voters to "get it" at long last since so many haven't after all these years of the truth waiting to be recognized. We can only hope.

McCaffery? Mccaffey Virus scan? McCafferty head of DEA? Did he shave his head, go back in time,and vomit a day labor building?

The decider on the assigning a criminal conpiracy investigator to the Plame case would have been someone who knows this is how Aimes and other were prosecuted as bad CIA and FBI agents working for Russia. The operations officers were murdered in Iraq the day afet Plame went to 'Vanity Fair' and admitted who she was, a request. Fitz's job was to go after Plame. He would not do this. The rest is history and Plame's old boss is handing the CIA analysts move over to DIA, probably the goal from the beginning. CIA is where the spies are and they all don't work for us, so DIA would be the end goal of anything foreign intelligencne agency wanting our true intelliegence capabiltiy. Plame's dad was Air Force and the new Director from DIA/NSA to CIA is also Airforce.

Plame a spy. Probably. As far as for who; it makes more sense that she worked with NSA and DIA on her domestic political groups and we had the wiretap issue to go through as a country because she actually worked for DIA; I doubt this alot like DEA NOCs overseas really working for DIA, although alot have military backgrounds. The move of the CIA analysts from CIA to DIA/NSA makes more sense also. However, if she is just a spy, chances are she is following through on a foreign plan. Aimes worked for the Russians.

NYT bartering away an investigation? Fitz apparently did this with a crminal conspiracy investigation involving the CIA. He was asked which partry he likes and admitted to being an indpendent. End of the criminal conspiracy investigators at DOJ going after bad CIA agents. He really prefers politicians, alot like Plame and most intelligence services.

Truthout'was started by retired CIA agents that came out with Plame...itused to be called Get Over It or something similar.

The more Bu$hCo can obfuscate the main story line, the less likely people will connect the dots. Therefore, The Armitage Red Herring serves their purposes very, very well. I expect them to milk Armitage as much as they can, lest too many others share katie jacobs clarity about the underlying fact: Armitage never committed a crime. Others did. Who are they?

The conjunction of:
(1) The Armitage Red Herring" ("Sand in the Eyes", Exhibit #1), and
(2) The Let's Smear Fitz (and the FBI) ("Sand in the Eyes," Exhibit #2),
is precisely the sort of treacherous behavior at which these villains excel.

They love keeping the US press docile by subverting their credibility. To wit: "a lawyer familiar with the case" is a descriptor so ambiguous that it ought to set off everyone's Bullshit Detector. For all that I know, Barbara Comstock has a law degree, and could be described as "a lawyer familiar with the case." It would certainly be consistent with their worldview, in which Scooter Libby told Judy-Judy to describe him as "a former Hill staffer." Sheesh...!

Methinks something is afoot. That "Investor's Daily" OpEd was detailed, and symptomatic of a significant degree of fear. And as someone on this thread pointed out, Novak's PRIMARY SOURCE has still not been revealed?? Hmmmm... I think that leaves Powell, Tenet, Bush 43, and Dick.

Who would go to such lengths to smear a federal prosecutor (and, by association, the FBI agents involved in the case)? Who but Dick would think they could actually pull it off?

Yesterday, I thought, "...maybe they're just incredibly anxious about the elections..." However, with a little more thought, I can only conclude this the start of a whole new disinformation campaign.

Americans might be pissed about the Plame Leaks, but I don't view it as cental to the way they'll vote. This has to be about something that generates a lot more fear among Bu$hCo Believers.

Either Fitz has something up his sleeve, or else there really is a bombshell in that coming publication. Or both?

Someone's scared -- and it's not Armitage. And Rove IS being quiet -- verrrryyyy interrrresting. This could get interesting, indeed.

Erectile dysfunction or impotency is a mighty curse that disrupts the normal functioning of your life. You have to counter it at any cost to bring joy and stability in your life. To start off your war against erectile dysfunction opt for viagra, the largest selling prescription pill across the world.The scare of erectile dysfunction has very much lessened after the arrival of viagra in the medicinal world. So, quick start your routine with the viagra dosage as prescribed by your physician. But first you have to get hold on cheap viagra and for that reason alone viagra online is the best.When you proceed to buy viagra online you would be guided throughout the entire procedure and consequently it would be possible for you to buy viagra with ease.

In the ancient era, the viagra influence was nowhere to be found as the erectile dysfunction medication Viagra didn’t came into being at that time. Specific details on impotence and pre-viagra age inform us that in that period men relied on Unani, Chinese, Herbal and other medications to treat their erectile dysfunction. But with the arrival of the modern age, Viagra was manufactured and approved by the FDA (Food and Drugs Administration) as an effective treatment of erectile dysfunction and after that the drug emerged extremely successful in treating impotence in modern society. Other than erectile dysfunction, Viagra has also evolved as an effective medicine to treat pulmonary hypertension and other ailments and this has further increased the popularity of viagra in global society.

Many of you might not be aware that your fitness level has much to do in case you are going through erectile dysfunction. Your over all health and your fitness level has much to do with the workings of your sexual organ. So keep an eye on your health and fitness to keep ED at bay.